From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26307 invoked by alias); 29 Jul 2010 14:53:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 26299 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Jul 2010 14:53:44 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from pool-173-76-48-4.bstnma.east.verizon.net (HELO cgf.cx) (173.76.48.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.83/v0.83-20-g38e4449) with ESMTP; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:53:40 +0000 Received: from ednor.cgf.cx (ednor.casa.cgf.cx [192.168.187.5]) by cgf.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB36313C061 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:53:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ednor.cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id C79052B352; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:53:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:53:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Constructive criticism Message-ID: <20100729145338.GA20325@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com References: <20100728001415.GD4000@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <4C50E8DD.3010806@gmail.com> <20100729055532.GA18691@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <4C5198A6.6020903@gmail.com> <20100729145211.GA20303@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100729145211.GA20303@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-talk-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com Reply-To: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2010-q3/txt/msg00010.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:52:12AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 04:05:10PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: >>On 29/07/2010 06:55, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 03:35:09AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: >>>> On 28/07/2010 01:14, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 07:55:14PM +0100, Andy Koppe wrote: >>>>>> Darn, dropped the punchline: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Your code is 100% bogus and should be taken out the back, >>>>>>>> lined up against a wall, and machine-gunned. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then the bleeding corpse should be hung, drawn and quartered. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then burnt. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then the smouldering rubble should be jumped up and down on. >>>>>>> By a hippo >>>>> Oh boy. That brought back memories. I guess I'm glad I'm not the >>>>> object of the discussion though. >>>> Clearly, I was too subtle in that reply. It doesn't seem that anyone in >>>> that thread was distinguishing between criticising someone's code and >>>> criticising the person themselves. Oh well, never mind. >>> >>> I'm certainly well aware of the distinction but it's not one that I've >>> had much luck with myself. >>> >>>> Well, I'm too busy to care right now anyway, I've got a whole bunch of >>>> parents that I have to go and tell that their babies are ugly! >>> >>> Wait! Dave! Stop! >>> >>> Oh boy. I'll bet it's too late. >>> >>> cgf >> >> Actually, it all went rather well, considering. There was an awkward >>silence for a moment, but then someone else spoke up and said that he'd >>thought so too, but hadn't wanted to say anything for fear of hurting their >>feelings. >> >> Then the guy from the QA dept. said that actually that might explain why the >>baby had failed in some of their tests, and then the Marketing guy said that >>they had had some negative consumer reaction to the baby in their polling, but >>they hadn't highlighted it in their report because ... well, everyone already >>hates Marketing anyway, and before you know it it turned out that pretty much >>everyone had been thinking the same thing but nobody was saying it. Even the >>parents were agreeing that they'd kind-of known it really, but didn't want to >>admit it to themselves... >> >> ... It was all going fine until I told them to "Plan to throw one away, you >>will anyhow". > >Hello Reddit users of 2015! We of the past salute you! readers